text:
Is it possible to upgrade a Boeing 747-8 and Airbus A380's engines for greater speed?
Is it possible to upgrade the Boeing 747-8 and Airbus A380's engines (upgrading to a newer engines) for greater speed, if the engines were more efficient and used less fuel at higher speeds relative to distance?
If so, what are the maximum speeds that the airframes or entire aircraft could handle or are designed to handle?

related if not duplicate of one of these: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/11936/1467 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/31384/1467

Also related: Mach buffet

Surely we could upgrade engines and fly faster. Maybe we could upgrade even more and fly as fast as we did in the 70s! That's the future! :)

Not much faster. Both of those aircraft are already operating at peak efficiency. Pushing them to go faster will cost a lot of expensive fuel (look up what it costs to fill up an A380) and as both are already at high sub-mach numbers, they can't go a lot faster than they do today, without exceeding vne and having a really bad day.

Put simply, no.Both the 747 and A380 are already operated at their designed top speed of 560-570 mph (mach 0.85 - 0.855), and new engines would not change that. To go faster new aircraft would have to be designed and built, and there does not appear to be a market for supersonic airliners or transport aircraft. The available aircraft are not the fastest which could possibly be built and flow, but they're fast enough to satisfy the market.

@el.pescado It turns out most people don't care about paying $23,000 for a ticket London - New York (the price of a Concorde ticket in 1990 in today's money) just to get there a bit faster. The future is apparently cheap ;)

I just wanted to comment on this question since some of my code is on the A380's GE engine.
Those engines are optimized for fuel efficiency at their cruising altitude and speed.  The tradeoff that you fight against when designing the engine for cruising altitude is that it makes the engine hard to start, and the stall margin (the pressure and fuel combo you need to keep the engine from stalling) is razor thin when they are on the ground.
Just to echo what Kevin said, any improvements to allowing the engine to start without stalling would surely go to the fuel efficiency, not to speed.

Welcome to the site, and thanks for the answer!

Yes, welcome, and please stick around, sounds like you've got lots of knowledge to add to the community!

This question is primarily about the airframe. How does the most upvoted answer not even mention the abilities of the airframe?

Is the engine stall behavior the classic compressor stall?

If the engines are upgraded to "better" ones, the manufacturer would make it result in increased carrying capacity or increased range (or both), but not increased speed.
The limitation is the airframe. If you try to push it faster, you will run into aerodynamic problems, for example part of the flow is supersonic around certain areas of the wing. It is undesirable and cannot be changed without redesigning the airframe.
However, other things are relatively easy. Even if you do nothing to strengthen the structural elements, an improved engine would allow better climb performance, shorter runway length under the same conditions etc. It will give airlines more flexibility. Better efficiency means lower fuel consumption, which translates to either more payload or more flight distance, again giving more flexibility to airlines.

Since there is inevitably a big change in the aerodynamic behaviour of any plane at Mach 1.0, there is a relatively limited speed gain to be had from pushing beyond Mach 0.85 before some parts of the airflow become transonic and the whole design would need to be changed.
The same applies to the air flow within the engine itself. Supersonic aircraft don't have large diameter, high bypass ratio, wing-mounted engines with (at least conceptually) simple intake designs.
From the customer's (i.e. the airline's) point of view, the simplest way to operate a plane is to be able to cruise at the same speed as everyone else when flying busy routes (e.g. transatlantic from Europe - USA), not by trying to jump the queue and save a few minutes.
It would certainly be technically possible to do what the OP proposes, but it's not economically sensible if either the customer or the manufacturer wants to run a profitable business.

What OP proposes is upgrading the engines, implying without redesign of the airframe. And that is, including by your own answer, not possible technically. Because the $M_{MO}$ is just a few hundredths above the normal cruise speed.

Airfoils and frame are optimized for a certain speed. The newer aircraft are optimized to operate closer to the trans-sonic regime, if not in it.
The 747 is a great workhorse, and was designed to actually fly quite fast. Pan Am wanted the 747 to fly at 0.9 mach, but Boeing made a compromise of 0.87.
Realize that all of this was before the oil crisis of the 1970s and the current stringent regulations on engine emissions.  The thing is the 747 was designed back in the 1960s and I am sure its drag profile is a lot bigger than current aircraft that can fly 0.87.
Now the issue one will have to take into account is cycle time for a 747. Fatigue will be setting in for older aircraft as opposed to one that is in mint condition... right off the factory floor. The wings will be a little less stiffer and aero-elastic effects can become more prominent for the 747 at 0.87 compared to several decades ago.

The answers here are BONKERS!
The sound barrier is the limit for speed on 747s and 380s.  Therefore stronger engines will not make top speed higher.  Rest in pieces.
For the more common case of cruising speed, new engines might make the airplane cruise faster for a given cost (eg fuel cost), but that would be a hard sell.
ASIDE: I have heard that 747s have the highest cruising speed.

This information is incorrect if by "the sound barrier" you mean Mach 1.0 true airspeed. The aircraft you mention have Maximum Mach Numbers (Mmo) of less than the speed of sound. It is true that local flow plays a significant role in limiting max speed.

No, the highest cruising speed of any airliner was that of the VC-10, at Mach 0.89. Business jets go even up to Mach 0.935.

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні


text:
Would an extra fan make turbofans more efficient in cruise?
A turbo fan engine cannot use all of its available thrust in cruise any longer that it normally does at today's technologies, otherwise it would risk a meltdown of the internal hot  engine parts and or operate inefficiently because the fan blades would be above supersonic speed.  It however needs its full thrust for take off.
The Extra disused thrust however represents extra engine weight relative to the total weight of the engine i.e weight whose thrust does not contribute to the engine at cruise. That weight is weight that the aircraft has to carry around for the thousands of hours of flying the aircraft throughout and through its entire lifespan, representing a loss in total efficiency.
Given the fans in a modern bypass turbofan engine produces 54% of the thrust Could the aircraft be a lot more efficient if an extra fan was added to the side of the engine though with no engine, to be or powered by the disused torque of the engine at cruise.  I know there are problems with adding gears or a prop shaft to spin the extra fan for some engines, particularly large engines but some engine designs can accommodate gearing. The extra fan would then provide thrust that mitigates the relative dis used weight

If an engine was as simple as just a fan (no combustion chamber, no cowling, no plumbing, ...), then why have all the extra cruft? I get the distinct feeling that you're missing something in your analysis which results in a major error in your final sentence conclusion.

You have a key misconception in the premise of the question. Full thrust isn't used at cruising altitude not because it would damage the engine, but because you don't want to overspeed the aircraft. Remember your "what happens if you apply full thrust for five minutes"-question?

If you appy full thrust at cruising altitude for a long time, the fan blades will melt

no, that's wrong, fan blades don't melt. and if they do, then you have other more pressing problems.

read the  answer to this question https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/45455/is-it-possible-for-an-airliner-to-cruise-at-engine-full-thrust

@securitydude5 The fan blades are the ones at front and run cool. They won't melt. The turbine blades at the back are the ones that run hot.

Question edited :-)

Related: Could a turbofan have two adjacent fans?

Having a fan with no engine to the rear of the combustion chamber is quite simply the best method... of reducing the efficiency and thrust output of the engine. As a whole the addition of a source of drag without adding more energy to the system reduces power output and you might as well add some bricks to the intake. I have a feeling you are grasping at the idea of increasing bypass, but then if you want a thorough answer I would recommend a focused question such as Why is the bypass ratio of a turboprop higher than turbofan?
I recommend you do some additional study into the concepts of turbofan engines before making a question again, but if you have a conceptual issue then feel free to ask; this is the place to learn all about subjects such as this.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What's the name for this part on a Cessna 172P?
I am trying to figure out what the name for this part is.

I believe that's the door seal, but all seals I am looking at, seem to be glued to the outside now.

It’s part of the interior trim, which has come dislodged from the fuselage side near the door.

Trim, yes. It appears to have shrunk over time. Door seal is a V-shaped material that is glued to the door (and not pictured here). Order a new trim piece from Plane Plastics in OK. http://www.planeplastics.com/airplanes/cessna-single/172175/

@CrossRoads I'd also order a thorough inspection of the entire aircraft. I an see the corrosion on some of the interior without blowing up the image, looks like this aircraft hasn't been properly looked after in years if not decades.

I think that the rusty looking stuff is just old glue. There is some surface rust around the door latch, but it will probably come off with a bit of rubbing with wax or Tri-Flow.

That's exactly my plan. Unfortunately the previous owner hasn't put much effort into the plane, so I am planning on giving it a lot of love.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How do pilots adjust trim on the B777, where the control forces are simulated?
I know that pilots of small airplanes (e.g. Cessna 172) use force to trim, i.e. they hold the required attitude using the yoke, then trim the aircraft until no force is required to hold the yoke in that position. In that way, they trim using 'feel' to gauge how much trim is needed.
Airliners and some other planes use trimmable stabilizers for trimming, thus the yoke always returns to center if the pilot leaves it.
So I was reading the B777 FCOM and it's written in there that since the plane is fly-by-wire, it simulates control column forces to let the pilot know it is out of trim.
My question is how does the pilot know how much trim to use? I know one way would be to let go off the yoke and see if the plane keeps its attitude or not, but is there another way?
(sorry for the long question, I am a newbie here and did my best to ensure you understand my question).

Is your question for a large aircraft with automatism, or for GA aircraft like the C172?

@mins I'm sorry it's not clear in the question. My question is for the boieng 777.

It would be, at worst, like flying in simulator with zero force-feedback from the yoke/stick. You just keep trimming as you slowly ease off the yoke/stick, until the yoke/stick is resting in center and you're not putting force on it any longer. At no point do you just let go of the yoke/stick, as this likely would jerk the aircraft nose-down or nose-up.

@mins I didn't realize the 777 was part of the dadaist/surrealist movement.

@TomMcW: Thanks, I wasn't aware this was a false friend :-) so maybe an aircraft with automatic trim.

@mins At least it wasn't autism :) "Automation" would be the word you're looking for

@SnakeDoc yes that's what I thought at first. But then what role would the column forces have in trimming the plane ie deflecting the yoke to a particular position would require the same force whether the aircraft is in trim or not.

B777 you only use trim for speed changes, configuration changes are auto-trimmed.
You actually only have to hit the trim switches once and the system will auto-trim to the new speed.
Only in PFC (Primary Flight Computer) degraded or failed modes you have a conventional trim method.

Do you have a source for "You actually only have to hit the trim switches once and the system will auto-trim to the new speed."? The FCOM says "Once the control column forces are trimmed to zero, the airplane maintains a constant speed with no column inputs." That sounds like you have to hold the trim switch until the force is gone.

The basic idea, as the FCOM says, is to simulate control column forces (as in 'conventional' aircraft) so that the pilot knows that he/she is out of trim. So, once the aircraft has been trimmed, there is no force on the control column- the pilot stops trimming at that point.
Boeing 777 uses a feedback actuator to give an artificial feel to the pilot emulating conventional aircraft- this is no accident, as Boeing B-777: Fly-By-Wire Flight Controls notes:

The philosophy employed during the design of the 777 Primary Flight Control System  maintains a system operation that is consistent with a pilot’s past training and experience. What is  meant by this is that however different the actual system architecture is from previous Boeing airplanes, the presentation to the pilot is that of a conventionally controlled mechanical system.

The control columns (yokes) have feel units, which provides tactile feedback to the pilots just like conventional aircraft:

A gradient control actuator is attached to the two control column feel units. These units provide the tactile feel of the control column ... (This) is consistent with a pilot’s experience in conventional commercial jet transports.

The image below shows the Boeing 777 yoke with the trim switches.

... The buttons on the right side of the yoke control the trim surfaces for the elevator.; image from wired.com
This trimming system works just like the conventional aircraft- as you noted "they hold the required attitude using the yoke, then trim the aircraft until no force is required to hold the yoke in that position". Note that, though what happens internally is different from the conventional aircraft, what is presented to the pilot is same. From An Analysis of the Boeing 777 Fly-By-Wire System:

... the pitch trim system ... is used in the exact same way, that is, should the pilot find himself pushing the control column forward to keep his desired flight condition, pushing the trim "up" ... will gradually reduce the required force on the control. The opposite goes if the pilot is pulling back on the control. Just like in any aircraft, the ship will be "in trim" once the required force on the control column is zero.

That image is a 787 yoke (which is probably the same design at the 777 one)

Excellent explanation. Clarify one more confusion: suppose I'm 'in trim' on a b777. The speed is constant and so is the attitude. Then I pull the yoke to a fixed deflection (I'm using a certain amount of force). Now as the airspeed moves away from the fly by wire trim speed does the force required to HOLD the yoke in that position increase?

Also on a conventional aircraft the yoke has no center position ie it always returns to position with zero trim forces. Airliners on the other hand have trimmable horizontal stabilizers so if I trim them as you would on a cessna 172 ie trim out the column forces then let go of the yoke the yoke would still return to center position causing a violent attitude change.

@TalhaSiddiqi The force required to hold the yoke in that position stays the same, if Boeing programmed it that way. If they have programmed auto-trim, the force will be slowly trimmed away until zero.

The yoke will always return to zero force position. On fully irreversible flight controls, trim is only setting the neutral point of the feel spring. The B737 has an autotrim feature for the column, where zero force point changes automatically when horizontal stabiliser position changes.

When you say it simulates control column forces to let the pilot know it is out of trim. - the forces on the flight control are actual forces, they are just exerted on the flight controls by actuators instead of a conglomeration of springs, dampers, aeroforces, oil pressure, cables, online autopilot actuators etcetera. A computer computes what the feedback force should be, based on the position of the column/wheel/pedal. Any feel characteristic can be programmed in.

What's on board the B777 is the airborne version of what is on board Full Flight Simulators. The picture shows a sub-frame for a B737, to be built into the flight sim. Its from an old sales brochure and shows pretty sizeable electric actuators, present day ones are a lot smaller. This system was used for B737, but also for F-5, UH-60, MH-53, CN-235 etc etc.
Boeing has programmed force feel characteristics in the B777 that are pretty similar to the ones experienced by the pilots of their previous types. Since it is now all done by programming, they can add clever features such as auto-trim when the button is flicked, but on the whole the trim would still work as in all irreversible flying control systems: a mechanical spring provides forces, the trim button adjusts the neutral position of the mechanical spring so that when the aircraft is level, the control forces are zero.
The B777 is fly by wire like the A330 is, there are computers and actuators involved in deflecting the elevators, ailerons etc based on the control sitch positions, just like in the A330. But unlike the A330, the B777 has active force feedback on the flying controls, also involving a set of actuators. Note that electric actuators are fail-passive: if all power is removed, the stick can move freely and the position can still be used for fly-by-wire aircraft control, it would just feel very light.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is there a fixed ratio between highest L/D and max endurance L/D?
It can be demonstrated that, for any airplane, there is a fixed ratio between the maximum range and maximum endurance speeds (1.31607...).
Does another, fixed ratio exist between highest L/D and L/D at maximum endurance speed...?

"It's known that,"  from where?

@CrossRoads  Changed to 'it can be demonstrated...' https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/36443/16042

Cool, I hadn't seen that formula before. Can find out some neat stuff just by asking where an assumption came from.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How does deploying flaps change the gradient and rate of descent?
My understanding is:
Using the gradient formula "(T-D)/W x 100", we can see that with the deployment of flaps, the gradient would reduce (due to the drag added). And since Rate of Descent (RoD) = gradient x Ground Speed (GS), the RoD will naturally decrease.
However, when doing questions, it is apparent that the gradient increases rather than the reduction I expected.
Can anyone provide some explanation on it? Am I using the wrong formula or viewing it in the wrong way?

More drag makes the gradient steeper, so it increases, no? And then obviously so does rate of descent, at least until the pilot reduces speed.

More drag makes the gradient steeper.

This is intuitive, however where I'm getting hung up on is the fact that the formula doesn't seem to work in this senario. Once again it could be me misunderstanding the formula, but it'd but nice to know where I'm going wrong.

Are you simply missing the sign? In descent, thrust is less than drag, so $T-D$ is negative. Say $T=20$ (units don't matter) and $D=30$, so $T-D = -10$. Now you increase drag to $D=40$, so $T-D$ becomes $-20$. It is lower number, but has larger absolute value, and means steeper descent. $0$ means level flight, the larger the difference, the further from level the flight is, either way.

Yes you’re viewing it the wrong way.  Deployment of flaps changes all sorts of flight parameters, not just one.  The wing area may increase, the camber and angle of incidence of the wing increase and so the engine thrust line is effectively tilted downwards.  The aspect ratio changes, as does the relative angle of the horizontal stabiliser.  The net result is that the flight efficiency is reduced (i.e. the amount of energy required to maintain height increases) but the stall speed is reduced.  There’s a lot happening and you have to take it all into account.  Typically on approach you’ll want a low airspeed and relatively high rate of descent but without compromising control authority, so the flap layout is designed to provide this.


text:
How do PAPI lights work?
Usually, there are four lights at the sides of runways which show airplanes' altitude status:

four red lights: too low
two red, two white: appropriate altitude
four white lights: too high.

If two airplanes with two different altitudes approach, do they see different number of white and red lights? Or are the lights set for the closer airplane?

I think you might mean PAPI lights here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_approach_path_indicator :)

See also AGNIS VDGS and PAPA as examples of other purely-passive optical systems used at airports to guide aircraft.

Here's how the PAPI lights work:
Depending on the angle of the viewer, a different color is seen:

(source: tc.gc.ca)
Then each light is calibrated to an angle:

(source: tc.gc.ca)
The good thing about this is that it's dead simple technology where very few things can go wrong: The lights have to be on and calibrated for the correct angle. The downside is that its usefulness decreases with lower visibility.
Some new systems appear to have solar panels as an off grid (and alternative/backup) power source which is sensible. Many systems today also have LED lights.

If two airplanes with two different altitudes approach, do they see different number of white and red lights? Or are the lights set for the closer airplane?

The system is independent and passive, in the sense that it never makes contact or note of the aircraft approaching. It lights up all to all aircraft in the beam. Hence, it 'works' for all aircraft at the same time.
Some new systems feature FAROS (Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal) giving an indication that the runway may be occupied by another aircraft by flashing the lights.
For a little information on differences between similar systems to PAPI, see this link.

A parabolic reflector like that would work well for a halogen lamp, but I'm not sure how they get a good separation with arrays of discrete LED lights.  (Granted, the question isn't really concerned with the internals)

I would like to add that some systems (at least the ones I'm familiar with, attached to an ILS) are finely tuned to the appropriate glideslope. If the box containing the lamps is tilted beyond a degree or two (hit by a mower, perhaps) it trips a switch that kills the light.

Perfect answer, thanks; I always used to tell myself that the PAPI is polarised somehow.

Re the second diagram: As the old joke goes, below four reds you see four greens. This means that the PAPIs are shining through the grass and you might want to think about pulling up. ;)

@StallSpin Note that even when there's an ILS the PAPI lights aren't really "attached" to it - They're often calibrated to match the ILS glideslope, but sometimes not (there's a note on the approach plate when this is the case - e.g. the PAPI light on runway 14 at KFRG has the same descent angle, but a different threshold crossing height (TCH) than the ILS glideslope - it puts you on the runway a little earlier).

@NickT NBP's LED PAPI lights are a good example of those - the technology is basically identical except the "light source" and "filter" elements of a traditional PAPI light are combined into the LED array (red LEDs on top, white on the bottom). Much like LED landing lights you probably can't really tell you're looking at a bunch of LEDs when it's shining at you :-)

@EdDaniel I've always heard "White over white: you're alright [or something similar]; Red over red: you're gonna be dead."

They use a lens system that projects the light in a narrow beam so each plane sees something different and makes the glide slope indicators a passive system.
you can see this nicely on a foggy morning:

Nice picture! +1

The lights you refer to are called PAPIs (Precision approach path indicators). They to do not change colour based on the altitude of the plane but are rather passive light boxes that have a different colour depending on the angle that you look at them.

Each light is mounted at a slightly different angle.

If you are at the neutral axis of such a light you will see a blend of red and white.

+1. I like the runway shape diagram. It is very important to learn the different appearances of runway and then determining the correct approach.

@Farhan That works (and should be used) only on level runways. If the runway is inclined, using this technique might actually fool the pilot into an incorrect glide slope angle, which can be dangerous. This is what initially destabilized the approach of Air India Express flight 1344 before it crashed at Kozhikode airport.

The PAPI lights are not set for any airplane, they're unintelligent displays that are visible in different ways based on the angle of the viewer. For that reason, there can be an unlimited number of aircraft in view, and each will see the appropriate color selection.


text:
What accidents of chance have played a part in the design evolution of aircraft?
I asked a question, Have we seen the last significant experiments in the configuration of jet airliners?, and then by chance while reading something else came across a link to How the 747 Got Its Hump, an article describing various key developments of aircraft design that can be attributed to unpredictable events and causes.
If we consider only airliners, there are some obvious drivers of design in aviation: economy, safety, performance, passenger comfort, reliability, ease of maintenance and so on.
There are some though that appear to be on-off or wholly unexpected factors that nonetheless have left a permanent mark on design - significant random mutations, if you want a biological metaphor:

Today’s 747 has a large upstairs cabin because Trippe thought it would be a freighter, because a round hump produced too much drag, because Pan Am bosses had fond memories of the Stratocruiser’s bar (and all-night parties held by the light of the Pratt & Whitney R-4360s’ flaming exhausts), and because fuel prices went through the roof. Nobody set out to design the airplane with an upper deck. It came about because it was possible and because it adapted the 747 to a changing environment. It evolved. (How the 747 Got Its Hump)

What other notable accidents of chance have had enduring effects on aircraft design?

I like this question, I fear it'll be closed as too broad though.

I do like the question but unfortunately, it's definitely too broad for here.


text:
How many of the airliners that ever existed have been lost in flight?
Another way of asking this is: Of all the airliners that have taken off and returned to the earth, what proportion have actually landed?
Or another way: If you were born as an airliner, what is the probability that you would die at work?
I'm specifically interested in:

airliners, being used as airliners (for example, not as emergency troop transports)
hull-losses
aircraft that took off and then crashed or were otherwise lost (i.e. not simply destroyed while on the ground)

We'd have to start with the total number of airliners constructed, which at a guess is a number in the region of 50-60 thousand - but perhaps someone has a reasonably accurate figure already collated from available sources.
Then we'd need to know the total number lost in flight - I guess it's just possible someone has such a figure.
It would be interesting to see how the figure changes for aircraft limited to particular eras.
Related questions
A related question has been pointed out in the comments, What percentage of airplanes are involved in a crash in their lifetime?
That's not explicitly about airliners, though in fact most of the discussion there seems to be based on airliners, and it contains some useful figures, including in one of the answers:

That's a rate of 1.56 % aircraft with a fatal accident, or 1 / 64.

This is just an extrapolation from data about 2014, but it's a start.
However, it is based on incidents that kill people, rather than flights that damage airframes beyond repair, so it is about something slightly different.

Could you perhaps start with List of missing aircraft? There are a few dozen entries there. You can filter that by what you consider to be an "airliner".

That's not actually going to help, but thanks anyway because it shows the question is not as clear as it could be!

If you want to include crashes, then try the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft.

And how about aircraft that were lost while attempting to take off?

What is an airliner? How do you define the type of aircraft you are asking about? For example, does the Beech 99 "Airliner" count? If so, do you count a Beech 99 crash operated on a §135 mail run? I think as written this question is unclear, and possibly too broad.

Related 1: What are the statistical probabilities of commercial aircraft accidents? and 2: What percentage of airplanes are involved in a crash in their lifetime?

@FreeMan Falling to the ground in small pieces is not "landing", nor is a catastrophic crash into terrain, or a flight into a large building. In the case of the airliners that were flown into the World Trade Center in 2001, I believe they were basically turned into dust and small pieces.

How are you counting botched landings (landing short, runway overrun, hard landing leading to hull loss)?

@Mark I think those would count. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, and exactly where will be a slightly arbitrary point, but that seems reasonable.

For the portion that were hull losses, if you draw a graph of hull losses vs age you'll probably see a bathtub curve (of course would be more informative if that graph could also account for retired airliners).

Okay, let's try for a first approximation. Some heavily-produced airliners; for simplicity I'm only counting jets. (ie, I don't want to try and work out how to deal with the DC-3...)

A320 family. 7481 built, 35 hull losses (0.5%)
A330. 1330 built, 11 hull losses (0.8%)
Boeing 727. 1832 built, 118 hull losses (6.4%, mostly out of service)
Boeing 737. 9401 built, 184 hull losses (2.0%)
Boeing 747. 1528 built, 60 hull losses (3.9%)
Boeing 757. 1050 built, 8 hull losses (0.8%)
Boeing 767. 1097 built, 15 hull losses (1.4%)
Boeing 777. 1467 built, 6 hull losses (0.4%)
DC-9. 976 built, 101 hull losses (10.3%, mostly out of service)
MD-80. 1191 built, 35 hull losses (2.9%)
Tu-134. 854 built, 69 hull losses (8.1%, mostly out of service)
Tu-154. 1026 built, 69 hull losses (6.7%, mostly out of service)

This is a partial list, but it includes (I think?) every type with around 1000 or more examples built. It is thus probably representative of the general population of jet airliners. Total 29,322 aircraft, of which 711 (~2.5%) were eventually hull losses.
Now, not all hull losses are flight accidents - there are ground fires, accidents, military action, hurricanes, all sorts of other things - but the majority are. It's probably reasonable to estimate that the overall hull-loss-due-to-flight-accidents-so-far rate is thus a little lower, around 2%, but probably not much below that.
Now, it's worth noting that this isn't quite the same as

If you were born as an airliner, what is the probability that you would die at work?

...because some of these aircraft will probably be hull losses, it just hasn't happened yet. If Boeing stopped building 747s tomorrow but airlines kept flying them, the hull loss rate would steadily creep up over time until all examples were either crashed or retired. So if you want to work from that perspective, the "eventual accident rate" will be higher. I've flagged the ones which are nearly completely out of service, where these will be approaching a "lifetime" loss rate - they're noticeably higher than the others.

I think your assumption of 'The majority of hull losses are in flight' is exactly the statistic that the OP is asking for more details on.

@DJClayworth Agree this bit's somewhat weak, but it's a figure that looks right after reading over the accident lists. It's hard to get a clearly defined list of just hull losses for any of these (other than the ones with only a handful, eg 777), but the WP page for the Tu-134 has almost all of them in a convenient table. For that particular type, ~85% of those were in-flight, counting takeoff & landing accidents, so it suggests the overall guess is in the realm of possibility.

@Andrew, you are using Wikipedia for this? You should get better numbers at https://aviation-safety.net/. Unfortunately they don't seem to classify in-flight/on-ground either.

@JanHudec it's fine for basic numbers and a quick first-order answer, IME :-) the AS.net data is good, but doesn't have total built so can only really answer one side.

The rate for those types close to end of commercial service should be somewhat higher than the one for current types will be close to their end of service, because subsequent generations of aircraft generally tend to be safer to operate than their predecessors.

You missed every single type of airliner in the era that saw the highest density of accidents, the 1940s-'60s. Constellations rained down, DC-3s too, as did other types of that era. It was even worse in the 1920s and '30s, but the numbers were a lot lower as there simply weren't many aircraft around.


text:
What suits best for lateral controllability at high Angle of Attacks- a vortex generator or wing slots?
At high angle of attacks, the prominent problem is the separation of airflow. And if this airflow separation is near ailerons, we lose lateral controllability.
And the solution is making the flow turbulent.
By adding slots in a wing at correct positions, we are capable of re-energising the flow. It is the same thing a vortex generator does (I presume).
But what device is best suited for the current case?
From an unknown source, I found:

At high angles of attack, the airflow over the ailerons can be separated from the surface. Vortex generators, positioned just forward of the ailerons, are designed to re-energise the boundary layer and help to prevent this separation. This makes the ailerons more effective at high angles of attack

(I do not how effective this reason is.)
And therefore, please consider the case of Leading Edge Slats (which creates a slot) too. At a high angle of attack, a LE slat helps by re-energising too. And If we have a turbulent flow (by employing LE slats) in the early stage, (I think) it is better than the case where we put vortex generators near ailerons, which may encounter an already separated flow.
Edit: The aspect of lateral controllability dictates the conditions where one wing can be at higher AOA than the other. Will Slats not fail to provide the desired effect due to its symmetrical effect (increasing CLmax simultaneously for both and stalling one of the wings and making into a spin)?
Does the "symmetrical effect" apply to VG and slots near the aileron too?

Vortex generators can be used at the leading edge to energize flow and delay separation.  They are widely used as an add-on device to improve low speed behaviour of a range of light aircraft, and in that usage they have a similar effect to a slot or slat in that they both increase stalling AOA and improve aileron response in the stall. I call them "poor man's slats".
However, slats are able to energize the boundary layer to significantly higher angles than leading edge vortex generators.  As an add-on, VGs are great, but if your objective was to maximize AOA at stall, you would go with a slot or slat.  A VG might raise stalling AOA from 15 to 19 or 20 degrees, whereas a slat/slot is good to the mid 20s.  Similarly, a VG can increase a wing's Clmax by maybe .3 to .5, whereas a slat/slot adds about 1.
To answer the question specifically, for maximum benefit for lateral controllabilty at the highest AOA possible, you would use a slot/slat. VGs would be a second choice, unless your objectives were more modest, in which case if they do the job, they would be a much cheaper and simpler solution.
There was a period back in the 40s when leading edge slots in front of the ailerons were popular as a way to maintain aileron authority through the stall (Globe Swift, Stinson, etc). Later, designers just included sufficient wing washout to achieve the same goal without the manufacturing hassle and drag, and fixed slots disappeared.
Modern transport airplanes and specialty STOL airplanes will use slats across the full span to increase stalling AOA and maximum lift the wing can make, as opposed to just improving aileron control.  Same with leading edge VGs, although the benefit is only about half.  On light twin engine airplanes, VGs have miraculous benefits for single engine performance.

To me, the biggest difference between VGs and slats is that the former are always added later as quick fixes for some deficiency whereas the latter are intentional parts of the design from before the first metal is cut.

I think the aspect of lateral controllability is missing in this, where one wing can be at higher AOA than the other. Will Slats not fail a little due to its symmetric effect?

@PeterKämpf that's pretty much what I meant by add-on device but yes in general.  A few homebuilts like the Savanah do go with VGs as a slat-alternative to avoid the complexity/weight/cost/drag of a fixed slat.  Once I was building (never finished) a Pegazair homebuilt, making wing parts, and I didn't want to fabricate its fussy automatic slat system, so I decided to leave it out and use VGs with a reprofiled LE.  I'd estimated that a Clmax increase of .4/5 instead of 1 would only raise the minimum speed from 28 to about 32 mph, a small enough penalty to make it worth leaving them out.

With the Swift ultralight foot-launchable sailplane, you literally "add on" the vortex generators ("vortilons"), mounted on the leading edge, in front of the elevons, one on each wing) every time you assemble the aircraft-- they velcro on--

Nature provides the perfect answer with soaring bird's slow flight wingtips, as seen with condors and eagles, the slot.
Leading edge devices do increase Coefficient of Lift and do increase stall Angle of Attack, but placing the slot directly in front of the
aileron effectively makes it a separate 2nd wing with its own airflow.
This Junkers design was first seen in the 1920s and worked well to improve low speed roll control in passenger aircraft such as the Ju 52.  The slotted aileron/flap can extend the entire length of the wing.
As with other high-lift devices, they do have a drag penalty at higher speeds, which is why the albatross keeps a single tapered wing tip.  Modern airliners are able to retract their leading and trailing edge devices for the same reason.


text:
How does the location of the undercarriage affect 'Nosing Over'?
"The location of the undercarriage and the height from the ground of the aircraft’s centre of gravity have a very important
role in the design of aircraft. In the case of a “tricycle undercarriage” the main wheels are situated at such a distance
behind the centre of gravity that its projection at take-off and landing angles of attack (plus a safety margin of 2-3 degrees
do not fall outside the line joining the right and left supports. This prevents the aircraft from nosing over and provides
stability during the landing run."                __Page 13,Theory of Flight

)
It can be easily understood that in a Tricycle configuration, if CG(or its projection) is aft of supporting main wheels, Tail Strike can happen. And in Tailwheel configuration, if CG(or its projection) is forward of supporting main wheels, then 'Nosing Over' can happen.  But the line "In the case of a “tricycle undercarriage” the main wheels are situated at such a distance behind the centre of gravity" and line "This prevents the aircraft from nosing over "  is contradicting.

Tail wheel & tricycle are opposites. Tricycle configuration = has a nosewheel. Which is what's being discussed in the quoted text. Nosewheel, then CG, then main gear. This works to prevent tailstrikes on takeoff & landing. What nosing over is with tailwheels, tail strikes are with nosewheels. The text is correct.

In a taildragger the c.g. is aft of the main gear. In a tricycle gear the c.g. is forward of the main gear.

@Ralph J, copy/paste that as an answer and you'll have my vote...

Tail wheel & tricycle are opposites. Tricycle configuration = has a nosewheel - as a child's tricycle has the single wheel to the front. This configuration is what's being discussed in the quoted text. From front to rear: nosewheel, then CG, then main gear. This works to prevent tailstrikes on takeoff & landing. What nosing over is with tailwheels, tail strikes are with nosewheels. The text is correct.

Please check again, I have edited. Thanks for clearing the air but it is still a contradiction in text

"What nosing over is with tailwheels, tail strikes are with nosewheels" I'd imagine prop repairs and engine checks are a bit pricier than empennage repairs, though. ;)

@Freeman Both are the undesirable consequences of an unintended excursion in pitch. For light aircraft you're almost certainly correct; for airliners, a damaged aft pressure bulkhead from a tailstrike on landing can run to many multimillions of $$$... potentially enough to result in a hull loss.


text:
Why is sweep angle measured at the 25% chord?
If you look at wing planforms of e.g. the Spitfire, you can see that the sweep measured at the 25% chord line is 0°.
However, the leading edge is rounded/slightly swept and therefore induces spanwise flow across the wing.
The problem also applies to trapezoidal wing planforms where the leading edge is swept back and the trailing edge is swept forward, but the overall sweep angle is still 0°.
For a wing with 0° sweep, shouldn't the leading edge always be perpendicular to the flow direction?
Why is sweep measured at the 25% chord line and not at the leading edge? Has that something to do with the aerodynamic center?

But couldn't you make the same argument for the trailing edge? I.e. shouldn't the trailing edge of a 0 deg sweep also be perpendicular? Because then you'd simply have a rectangular wing... Someone else can probably answer this better, but the CG is typically around 25% cord, and what you should really be interested in is the net, or mean aerodynamic effect of sweep, right?  It would make sense to me that the net aero effect of sweep might be tied to a line along either the CG, or center of pressure.

Wing sweep is best measured at the average wing cord. And for subsonic aeroplanes the average wing cord is at 25%, because that is where the aerodynamic centre is located.

In the picture above we can see the linear forces acting on a wing, and the pitching moment $C_m$. We can choose any point on the wing cord to draw this vector diagram, but there is only one point where the pitching moment remains constant when lift increases, and that is the aerodynamic centre of the wing section.


text:
What are these two holes on the forward fuselage of a Boeing 747?
Does anyone know what are the two holes are on the Boeing 747, on the left forward part of the fuselage?

Source: airliners.net
I guess the right hole is the E/E compartment smoke override valve, is that correct?
Another hole under the belly just before pack inlet:

What is the function or name of this one?

The forward opening is the forward outflow valve or forward overboard valve (depending on reference consulted) which opens automatically if airflow in the forward compartment is low. It is independent from the two large aft outflow valves at the lower aft hull used for pressurization.
The second valve is the smoke override valve used in case there is smoke sensed in the the E&E compartment. Basically you try to get rid of the smoke by dumping it overboard. The second function is in case the fans used for ventilation of the E&E compartment fail. Then this valve is opened as well and the differential pressure ventilates the E&E compartment in reverse flow direction. The duct who was supplying the air is now sucking it out of the compartment.
The opening close to the pack inlet on the R/H side is the ground exhaust valve used to dump the air used for E&E cooling on ground overboard in case the temperature is high. This valve is always closed in flight.
Reference:

Boeing 747-400 System Schematic Manual, chapter 21, valves V462 (forward overboard valve), V447 (ground exhaust valve), V448 (smoke override valve)
internal documentation provided by employer of the author

@mins unfortunately I'm unable to share the documentation I have as it is Boeing proprietary or my employer proprietary. If you can get hold of the Boeing 747-400 System Schematic Manual Chapter 21 have a look on schematic 21-58-00 sheet 1. You are interested in the valves V447 & V448.

Chris: Your edits look perfect to me. Great answer!

The forward one is exhaust for E&E cooling. The aft one probably is dirt on the camera lens. You can see from the close up that it is a miss shaped circle.

It's not on the camera. See http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8445641 http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8433213 and http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8402175

Dirt on cameras is always very out of focus in any image. It produces vague blobs that are slightly darker than whatever's in the image, not sharply defined black marks.

Simply not true. Please check your facts before posting.


text:
How long will it take a new pilot to start flying more advanced planes like a Cirrus SR22T or Piper Malibu?
Here is my scenario.   I'm 53 years old and getting ready to sell my business and retire.  I've always been fascinated with aviation and have done lots of research and taken multiple training flights.
What I keep reading is "match your plane to your mission".  Makes sense.  Here is my mission.
I live in Kansas City and would like to fly to a second home approximately 900 miles away.  Also visit kids, vacations, etc.  Most flights in the 400-1,000 mile range.
Plan is to start my PPL once the business sells and I can commit to two-three lessons per week.   Hopefully get my PPL in 60 hours or so, then start on my instrument rating.  Another 50 hours for that appears to be typical.  As such, instrument rated with 100-120 hours logged within 12-18 months.
For my typical mission, something like a TTx, SR22T or a Malibu sound appealing.  Pressurization would be nice.  I don't see myself flying a 172/182 900 miles comfortably.
I figure I will be flying by myself 50% of the time.  With a second person 25% of the time and with a third person 20% of the time.  Only rarely with 4 seats occupied.  Budget around \$700K to max \$1M.
What is a realistic path for me? At what point is it reasonable for me to safely and legally pilot these high performance planes?   How would you suggest I get from newbie to mission capable?
Thanks!

People vary greatly in their ability to learn to fly, and especially in the retention of that ability as they age, so what I have to say may not at all apply to you. Or, who knows, it may well apply. What I have to say is what I used to say to all over-50 students who came to me, especially those wanting to get an instrument rating. It was simply this: You can become as good an instrument pilot as a person half your age, but it may take you twice as long as a person half your age. Good luck on your endeavor, and have fun!

It's way too early to be asking these things to be honest. You need to work your way up. Find out if you like flying lots first, and if you're any good at it, then work your way up to the airplane you want and you can afford. Jumping straight from a PA-28 to a turbine is a big jump for a low hours pilot, you'd probably want an interim step.

I was in a similar boat rought 7 months ago goalwise, except I didn't have the money, so I was simply looking to rent an SR22 or similar eventually. Step #1 is to get your PPL. It can take 3-6 months to get your PPL. Once I had the PPL I approached a local flying club who told me I needed an IFR rating before they will let me fly the SR22. In your case you can pretty much buy the SR22 and hire someone to train you. It will take 2-5 lessons and by that time you will have figured out much more about airplanes and what exactly you want to buy.

You have a few questions here that should be addressed individually.

What is a realistic path for me?

Get your PPL then start to consider what you can fly/own. As you train you will inevitably learn about the various major airframes people fly and what it takes to own one.
As a word to the wise you should read this thread about a young guy who figured he could get his PPL and buy the fastest plane out there for his mission. Its lengthy but paints a good picture of reality.
If you are flying long distances alone and don't need the useful load, like speed, and want to stay in your budget you should take a look at the Mooney's. You can get one of a few models they have made since the 90's for well within your budget.
You should join AOPA and make use of their resources to get more information on owning and buying a plane. They have been a great resource in my recent plane search. They can give you a realistic idea on finance options as well as what your insurance rates are going to look like.
As for whats common (at least what I have seen) to some extent depends on your flight school and the quality of the planes. Many people do their VFR PPL in a rented plane (C172 or PA-28 being the most common). Then those that really like it and are serious about it look to buy an entry level plane to do the IFR in as well as build hours, get to know the national airspace system and just fly fly fly. Many buy what they trained in or step up a bit to something like an M20C or Arrow etc. Once they have their IFR the trips get bigger, longer and you really start to cross some distance. At this point you can expect anywhere from a few hundred hours to upwards of well more than that depending on how much spare time you have to fly around. Generally speaking most owners I have spoken to put about 100 hours on their plane every year (unless they use it actively for business).
To flat out answer the question, we must first say "it depends" but generally speaking I would say it will take you in the ball park of 300-500 hours to get into a high performance complex plane like a TTx or SR22 at least from what I have seen. Although to be honest some people train in an SR22 (see the above linked thread discussion, that guy trained in an SR22). The Malibu is a bit of a different beast and would take more time to get into. You can realistically fly 500 hours in 2 years if you fly ALOT, at a regular pace expect it to take 4 to 5 years to get to that point.
Legally, you can go buy an SR22 right now, pay a hefty insurance premium and do all your training in it. As long as you complete what ever the insurance company wants you to do, you can fly the plane. The broader question is "should you?..."

At what point is it reasonable for me to safely and legally pilot
  these high performance planes?

The reality of this will come down largely to your insurance company and what they will allow you to fly for an affordable insurance premium. You list quite a range of planes here but generally if you want to fly high performance/complex airplanes your insurance company will look favorably if not mandate an instrument rating. For a turbine and or cabin class aircraft a commercial ticket wont hurt but is not necessary by any means. There will be some checkout hours required for any of these planes before you can fly them solo but the general expectation is that you are stepping up into them from another personal plane, or from a lot of hours in a rented plane. Most high performance newer aircraft will also sport a glass cockpit setup (G1000 or Avidyne etc). Insurance companies (and just common safety sense) will want to see some glass time if you plan on stepping into a plane like this.
Legally speaking you will need at least a PPL as well as a high performance endorsement (as all of these planes are over 200HP) and a complex endorsement for the Malibu as it has folding gear, moveable flaps and a variable pitch propellor. For a pressurized plane you will also need a high altitude check out.

How would you suggest I get from newbie to mission capable?

The same way every pilot does, fly and fly often. There are no short cuts in aviation training. Nothing can replace time in the left seat. Plenty of people go from nothing to flying for the airlines in just a few years. However in that time they log a lot of hours (over 1500 to be exact) and they train in all kinds of scenarios.
The most important thing to keep in mind is to be patient, your PPL training will be hampered by weather, broken planes, busy instructors, delayed check rides and all sorts of things. This happens to everyone and you should not let it paint a negative picture for you or discourage you.

200HP is a threshold for "high performance" aircraft? I had heard of  80kt+ stall speed as a threshold of high performance, but not engine power. The Cherokee Six was equipped with either 260HP or 300HP engines and not considered "high performance" so far as I know. It also had a variable pitch (constant speed) propeller, which I don't think qualified it as a "complex" aircraft. Sure, if you add up retract, prop, pressurized it starts to get complex.

The fixed gear Cherokee 6 only contains two of the three requirements for "complex" (complex must be a retract with moveable flaps and a variable prop), high performance is anything over 200HP. See FAA FAR 61.31 Subsection F part 1 "...high-performance airplane (an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower)..."

It begs the question, at least for me, of why 200HP was selected as the threshold of "high performance" and how an aircraft above that threshold is more demanding of pilot skill than one below. Heavier aircraft handle differently to lighter aircraft, certainly. Higher landing speeds demand greater pilot skill, as do aircraft with more flight-related controls (prop pitch, retract, etc.), but I don't see how HP directly relates to any of these things.

@AnthonyX, the engine power is matched to the overall performance characteristic of the plane. A light slow plane simply can't take advantage of a stronger engine, so a strong engine means either heavier or faster (or aerobatic) plane and faster cruise generally implies faster landing speed too—all being things that make the plane more difficult to handle. So the engine power is a reasonable proxy and is simple to specify.

@JanHudec It just seemed a bit odd in the case of the Cherokee Six. The Cherokee 140 has been used as a basic trainer (I started in one); the 'Six is a bigger, somewhat heavier airplane, but still doesn't seem all that different to the 140 - faster cruise, slightly higher landing speed, constant speed prop, two more positions on the fuel selector for tip tanks. Never seemed such a big step from the 140 for a plane well over 200HP. HP may be a simple proxy but it doesn't seem all that reliable to me.

"most owners I have spoken to put about 100 hours on their plane every year" It's obvious, but still perhaps worth pointing out, that even 100 hours per year translates to roughly one four-hour flight every two weeks, or a two-hour flight every week. Given OP's stated plans of most flights being in the 400-1,000 mile range, that's probably a reasonable estimate for a "target" flight duration. Of course, as soon as you're airborne, you'll forget about the flight time, at least during training...

Consider a few things:
First, where in the country do you intend to fly?  Is most of your flying going to be done within 200 NM of home or do you plan on really long cross countries on a regular basis?  Are you flying out west and will need to cross the Rockies or will you be flying east of the Mississippi?
For short or regional hops a CE-182 is a great airplane, especially for a new pilot.  Big useful load for the type (1200lbs), docile handling and landing characteristics, relatively speedy at 140ks cruise, good short field and soft field capability.  Even on a 900NM flight, it's not too bad, especially with a brisk tailwind.  And especially for you at this stage, a sterling safety record and insurable.  All you'll need is a PPL and a high performance endorsement and you're good to go.
Another thing to consider is your experience as a pilot at this point. The Malibus, Cirruses (Cirrii?) Corvallis, and even light twins like a CE-310 are more capable but demand a premium of experience and seasoning as a pilot before stepping into one.  And it's not just me; your insurance company is almost certainly going to tell you this as well, if they would even insure you at all at this point on those airplanes. I once read a story about a man who bought a Cessna Corvalis after his third hour of flight training and the insurance company wouldn't let him even solo it until he had 50 hours dual instruction in the airplane.   This isn't to say you should not seek out exotic and high-performance aircraft during your time is a pilot, but it means it is recommended that you pursue your first couple hundred hours of flight time as well as private pilot instruction in a more docile and slower aircraft to build the time and the experience needed to move up.   Don't worry, the flight time will go fast and sooner or later you'll be a pilot with 400-500 hours behind you and you'll be in good condition to seek out the more expensive and capable  machines.
As I mentioned before in regards to the insurability of the airplane, there's also the experience level with faster and more powerful aircraft and can lure you into trouble very quickly.   Many of these aircraft are marketed as personal airliners, and it's true that they are very capable.   But we are deluding ourselves to think of these airplanes this way.  Commercial aircraft are certified to far higher standards than general aviation airplanes, they have equipment that allows them to tread into darken skies much easier than these GA planes do.  They have performance guarantees, jet power, retractable landing gear, full flight into known icing capabilities, pressurization, etc.  and can live up to that standard.  Most GA aircraft short of the business jets realistically can't do that, thought companies like Cirrus market them as such to new time flyers and they should know better.  SR 22s, TTxs and other advanced technology speed demons make for good eye candy to the aggressive and inexperienced or naive among us.  I've often said that the most dangerous thing in aviation is a pilot who does not know what he/she does not know.  Part of that knowledge of good airmanship can be taught but a lot of it comes only from experience and knowledge of one's own capabilities and limitations.  Aspire for these birds, but build time and experience so you can better enjoy them when you're ready for them.
Another major factor is maintenance. It's true that you can afford a PA 46 or even a medium time King Air F90 around 800,000.  But that just gets you a very expensive paperweight in a hangar somewhere; the ownership cost need to be considered as well.  And the more exotic the aircraft you own, the more system it's going to have and the more it's going to cost to maintain it. An SR22 or a TTx will easily cost you 15,000 annually when you consider the cost of maintenance, hangering, fuel, insurance, recurrency training, etc.  Move up into the cabin class Malibus with the turbocharging, pressurization, weather radar, deicing, etc  is going to drive the price up to over 30,000.   Move from their end of the twins and turboprops, conservatively expect to double that figure, and then move into entry level jets you can expect that figure to double again.   It's not a cheap hobby.
UPDATE: As the OP changed the question a little bit, the answer to when you can step up into an SR22T or a PA-46-350 Mirage is that it depends.
First off, you can probably fly any of these aircraft with just a PPL, complex and high performance endorsements, and only a few hours of training with an instructor.  The airplanes are docile and well behaved, have good approach and landing characteristics and can tolerate quite a bit of handling errors.  All the aircraft listed have good saftey records in regards to mechanical failures, etc.  They are perfectly safe when operated properly by a competent and experienced pilot.  And a lot of pilot owners use these planes for business or pleasure on a regular basis.
The real issue here is can you operate these aircraft on real world long distance flights in the regimes they were designed for in real world, traffic, weather, emergencies, unplanned diverts, ATC instructions, etc.  People don't get killed in Cirruses and Malibus doing laps around a traffic pattern at a country airport on a sunny Saturday afternoon, but there are plenty of NTSB reports on these planes in congested and unfamiliar airports or airspace, bad weather, unfamiliarity with onboard systems, poor decisions in flight planning and airmanship, becoming saturated and overwhelmed with operating the number of onboard systems and other cockpit tasks, and just downright wandering into a dangerous situation where they never realized they were in peril until it was too late.
I'd highly recommend reading the book The Next Hour by aviation author Richard Collins.  The book, so titled after the joke aviation adage that the only hour in your logbook that counts is your next one, talks a lot about the nature and causes of general aviation accidents.  One topic that Collins raises in this book is that aggressive and hot blooded airplanes tend to attract aggressive pilots.  People who are aggressive and impulsive tend to seek out fast capable machines and generally don't know what they are getting into.  They are attracted to the speed and power and remain woefully ignorant of the responsibility and forethought needed to operate them safely.  A person can look at a Meridian or a Pilatus and think 'Wow! I could fly from San Francisco to Denver in 3 hours!' without being aware of what this will really mean to the neophyte operating a complex aircraft in IMC in a congested terminal environment with rapidly changing weather, new ATC routing, etc.
This can also be amplified by life experiences, socioeconomic status, cockiness, and arrogance.  The Beechcraft Bonanza earned an infamous nickname as the 'Fork-Tailed Doctor Killer' precisely because it's speed, power and luxury attracted successful doctors, trial lawyers, businessmen and other people who have had a lot of successes early on in life, with a lot of disposable income and little maturity when it came to flying.  They liked taking risks and living dangerously in their daily lives and, given their track records and bank accounts, vindicate this attitude by their previous successes.  Who cares if this pimply faced 19-year old CFI is telling me that the ILS approach into Airport X is difficult and demanding?  I did my instrument training all under the hood in Scottsdale, AZ in July.  I did my mandated minimum of 25 hours dual in my new airplane that the insurance company wanted.  I'm current and the ceilings are forecast to be (slightly) above minimums.  What could go wrong?
Fast forward to his approach where the ceilings were lower than forecasted for the area, he's making his third attempt at the approach down to minimums, becoming frustrated and unable to precisely track the ILS which he struggled with being his first time in real IMC, he's getting behind the airplane, not following checklists, ignoring critical items, and he's only got 15 minutes of fuel left.  And for the first time in his life, he's totally out of control and really, really SCARED.  Experience is a brutal instructor as she gives the test first and then the lesson.  And the problem is that many pilots will not survive the test in order to learn the lesson.  That, my friend, is how NTSB reports get written in on high performance airplanes.
Any license or certificate which the FAA issues is essentially a gov't issued journeyman's license to practice the craft of airmanship within certain boundaries and restrictions.  It does NOT convey upon you the status of mastery, nor should you ever think of them that way.  Airmanship is an art which takes a lifetime to master; there are pilots with over 20,000 logged hours who still learn new skills in the cockpit with each flight.
What isn't gauged or certified is the maturity or wisdom to understand personal capabilities and limitations, and knowing when a situation or conditions make it unsafe to fly.  Until this solid base of good airmanship is established you remain a risk and this gets enhanced as the aircraft you fly become more powerful, faster and more onboard systems.
The good news is that you can build this base through pilot experience, risk management, setting personal minimums and training.  I don't want to deter you from seeking out these a Malibu or an SR-22 or give you the impression that they are some kind of a dangerous deathtrap; they are not and I can see you safely upgrading to one of these airplanes during your flying career.  BUT DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
First off, let's get through flight training.  Spending $1 mil on a Meridian is a waste of money if you struggle to get your PPL in a CE-172 and just don't enjoy flying.  Once you have that PPL, log 100 or so hours flying 172s and earn your instrument rating while you at it.  The knowledge and airmanship skills are invaluable, make you a much safer pilot, and expand your capabilities as to when you can operate your airplane and go on cross country flights with less impediment by weather.
If, at this point, you still want to buy a plane, then consider what you mission will be, how much you are prepared to spend, both to purchase and on operating costs, and what kind of aircraft will suit that need and begin training for that aircraft.
We will consider the cases of the Cirrus SR-22T and the Piper PA-46-350 Mirage.  I would divide the requirements into when someone can safely operate these aircraft and when they would be reasonably insurable.
Safe operations minimums - SR-22T:*

PPL-ASEL
Instrument Airplane with currency
Minimum Required times before transition vary from pilot to pilot, depending on airmanship aptitude and speed at which he/she can assimilate into different aircraft, but The following would be typical:

150 hours PIC.
100 hours cross country time
50 hours cross country time between airports at least 400NM apart, of which at least 10 of these hours should be at night.
50 hours of instrument time, either real or simulated.
100 logged instrument approaches, multiple types eg ILS, VOR, RNAV,
NDB, etc.
20 hours of night flying time.
25 hours dual instruction on the SR-22T airplane.

High Performance Logbook Endorsement
High Altitude Training
Garmin Perspective training and at least 10 hours in a G-1000 or
Perspective equipped aircraft.

Insurable minimums - SR-22T:

PPL-ASEL
Instrument Airplane with currency
Minimum 500-1000 hours total (they will RAPE you on premiums for the
lower times), which should include the following:

500 hours PIC.
300 hours cross country time
100 hours cross country time between airports at least 400NM apart, of which at least 10 of these hours should be at night.
100 hours of instrument time, either real or simulated.
100 logged instrument approaches, multiple types eg ILS, VOR, RNAV, NDB, etc.
50 hours of night flying time.

High Performance Logbook Endorsement
Training specific to the airframe through a Cirrus Certified
Instructor Program and following Cirrus SR-22T transition cirriculum
to include:
25 hours dual instruction on the SR-22T airplane.
High Altitude Training
Garmin Perspective training

For the Piper Mirage, these are going to be a little higher due to the fact that it's a complex airplane with more onboard systems to manage.  You are recommended to seek out a complex logbook endorsement in a complex airplane prior to beginning this and build time flying a complex airplane.
Safe operations minimums - PA-46-350:*

PPL-ASEL
Instrument Airplane with currency
Complex Airplane Logbook endorsement
High Performance Logbook Endorsement
Minimum Required times before transition vary from pilot to pilot, depending on airmanship aptitude and speed at which he/she can assimilate into different aircraft, but The following would be typical:

150 hours PIC of which at least 50 hours should be in complex
airplanes.
100 hours cross country time
100 hours cross country time between airports at least 400NM apart, of which at least 10 of these hours should be at night.
50 hours of instrument time, either real or simulated.
100 logged instrument approaches, multiple types eg ILS, VOR, RNAV,
NDB, etc.
20 hours of night flying time.
25 hours dual instruction on the PA-46-350 airplane.

High Altitude Training
Garmin G-1000 training and at least 10 hours in a G-1000 or
Perspective equipped aircraft

.
Insurable minimums - PA-46-350:

PPL-ASEL
Instrument Airplane with currency
Complex Airplane Logbook endorsement
High Performance Logbook Endorsement
Minimum 500-1000 hours total, (they will RAPE you on the low time or low complex time premiums) which should include the following:

300 hours PIC of which at least 100 hours should be in complex airplanes.
200 hours cross country time
200 hours cross country time between airports at least 400NM apart, of which at least 10 of these hours should be at night.
100 hours of instrument time, either real or simulated.
100 logged instrument approaches, multiple types eg ILS, VOR, RNAV, NDB, etc.
25 hours of night flying time.
25 hours dual instruction on the PA-46-350 airplane.

High Altitude Training
Garmin G-1000 training and at least 10 hours in a G-1000 or
Perspective equipped aircraft.

*Safe operations indicates a pilot with good airmanship aptitude, clean safety record and demonstrated competence in handling the new aircraft during checkout.
I know some of this seems daunting but it's really necessary for safe operation of these aircraft.  If you fly on a regular basis you should acquire the flight times very quickly, within 2-3 years.  Don't get discouraged by this; keep at it.  I'd also recommend doing the following.

Start flying more at night and doing cross country flights.  Don't
keep you flying limited to one region of the country.  Fly to many
different airports.  It really looks good to see this in your logbook
and really gets you good experience.
If/When you get your instrument rating fly on overcast days where you
can log real IMC time in 'benign soup'.  It is an excellent way to
build up REAL instrument time.  NOTE: Do proper preflights, weather
briefings and SET PERSONAL MINIMUMS AND STICK TO THEM.  Don't fly in
hazardous weather eg embedded cumulonimbus, etc.  Fly practice
approaches to new airports in day VFR conditions to get familiarized
with them then fly them on overcast days in real IMC.
No man is an island; seek out the community and counsel of
experienced pilots and build up that ecosystem of knowledge.
Avoid hazardous attitudes and follow the FARs.  Most of that
knowledge was paid for in blood at some point in time and is
relevant.

Please fix the typos. It reads as if it was done with speech to text.

Thanks!   Sounds like you are suggesting 400-500 hours in a more forgiving plane with a G1000 cockpit before moving to a SR22, TTX or Malibu.   That's probably a 3-4 year timeline.   Any forgiving planes you would suggest that would be appropriate for my typical flight (900 miles with 400 lbs of load)?    That would be a 6-7 hour flight in a 182 with no wind.

If it takes you 3-4 years to build that time, then so be it.  You need to build that time and get that experience prior to taking on a high performance aircraft in order to stay ahead of the plane mentally and operate it safely.

As to avionics and other onboard equipment, it's all nice but not absolutely necessary.  In addition I'd recommend doing your private and instrument training in an aircraft with analog instruments and at most a WAAS equipped NAV/COM/GNSS.  We want you to master the fundamentals of airmanship here without getting into bad habits of using these systems as a crutch for poor flying skill.  Remember, the G1000 IFDs and other advanced avionics have the capability to make a good pilot better and a poor pilot dangerous.  Master the basics in analog cockpits you can move on to IFDs and do it safely.

A good rule of thumb for expenses is that with about 200 hrs/year the plane will cost you about 4 times the hourly fuel cost.  e.g.; a plane that burns 10 gph at 5 USD/gal (to keep the math simple) is 50 USD/hr fuel.  The total cost will be about 4 times that or $200/hr.  That cost is fuel, oil, maintenance, database subscriptions, engine reserve (to cover overhaul when due), hangar, and insurance.  That does not include the cost of the plane.

To clarify, I have zero interest in buying one of the planes listed as a new pilot.

My question centered on my mission.   To my eye, my mission (900 mile flights) would indicate planes like this would be appropriate.  Am I wrong here?   Are there other planes appropriate for my mission that a newer pilot should consider?  I know I could do a 900 mile flight in a cub, but who would want to?    What I'm reading is that unless I want to fly for 8+ hours and/or make three stops these are appropriate planes for my typical mission. As such I should have 500+ hours before undertaking my mission.

In that case it's a matter of what you want to do vs what you want to spend on the plane.  How many people do you want to carry?  For a mil or so, you can buy a good low time PA-46-350 or PA-46T.  They are good entry cabin class cruisers, 230kt+ capable with decent deicing, pressurization, etc for comfort and a decent 1500lb useful load for hauling four adults, their baggage, fuel and a ham sandwich pretty much anywhere you want to go.

Another recommendation for just a little more money is a Diamond DA-62.  A little more to buy (1.3 mil) but a smooth, modern easy to operate twin.  It would be similar in capability as a Cirrus ST-22 or a Cessna TTx but with a greater useful load and burning less fuel as those planes, and the added safety of being a twin.

I'm confused.  You think a Malibu, TTX or SR22 is too much plane until a pilot has 500+ hours under his belt, but the DA62 or PA 46's are OK?   I'm asking if there is any plane appropriate for a 200 hour new pilot that fits my mission (see initial post)?

A PA-46 is a Malibu.  The DA-62 would have similar experience requirements to other high performance single like the SR-22 in addition to requiring a PPL-AMEL and multi engine time.